America's Tax Burden To Rise

Why stop there? Let's just say it sucked From Borgaghk Ughthump. Barbarian Chieftain of the African Plains. His universal plan for Sabertoothed Cat defense really put us in this position.

You are mistaken! It's clearly the fault of Sir Edwin Archibald Eukaryotic Archaebacteria with his God damn nucleus and such nonsense!

Nuclei, the original Big Government.

You are both mistaken!

It was the big bang, that was when ***really started to grow and expand!

ftfy.

ftfy.

He didn't state it as an opinion, he stated it as fact.

FDR was one of the greatest presidents in American History, he had to fix one hell of a mess.

Here is data from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (table 1.1.1)

with tax rates from IRS table 23


There are no correlations between increase in the highest or lowest federal income brackets towards change in real GDP, based on that data.

That doesn't take into account large changes in upper/lower taxable amounts, and the horrendous amount of one-time increases/reductions which were added/subtracted. (See the notes from table 23).

The article you reference is based off an article written in 2003, excerpted from an item written in 1996, the conclusion of which is:

The New Steal!

Internet 101:

• facts based on opinion are the only thing that matter.

...so it was Wilson and Nixon's fault....all hail the Lord Supreme FIAT.

I blame Agnew.

I'll put up some neutral ground here and say that it's easy to confuse being a fantastic leader, with being a fantastic president.

Both FDR and Lincoln probably hold the title of "Best American Leaders", especially FDR with Henry Wallace as his Vice President. (inb4 Farm Subsidies, the policies stopped the dust bowl, so *** off). If all the government intervention really pulled us out of the Depression, or if a War Economy coming out as the only surviving industrial nation did, who can say for sure?

That said, a President isn't supposed to be a "Leader" in that sense. This comes to the argument of executive power.. The executive branch is just another "Check" in the checks/balances system of governance... It's not supposed to be particularly powerful on its own.

Some economic theories are fairly correct, not necessarily accurate in all cases but correct nonetheless. It's also true that most economics theories are only accurate or even correct withing certain situations. An example would be raising the price (and change nothing else) will most likely reduce demand - in the short run. Another example would that prices tend to get cheaper if the market is closer to the supply.

The biggest and where most of the bickering is about would be how exactly are those theories working in an actual dynamic and ever-changing world? It's true that raising prices would reduce demand but it might also increase demand. That is because nobody is sane enough to just raise then price and not doing something else (intentionally or unintentionally) which would creates something that will affect something that will change the demand itself.

This is also the reason why economics theories tend to invade other field of studies from psychology to ecology, environmental, health care, medicine to even biology. If there are choices in that field, then you probably find the economic invaders in there.

It's like throwing a rock. Newton's law says it will keep moving but you notice that the rock would fall on the ground and stop. Newton's law is correct but you also know there are other elements which are explained by other laws which might or might not explains why the rock falls to the ground and stops.

Raising taxes is the same. Some economic theories say 'yeah it will shrink the economy' - in the short run at least (i.e. within 1-2 years) - if and only if you can enforce it perfectly across all economic elements. However, you usually can't enforce it perfectly and even if you do, you will most likely experience something else because raising taxes will not simply just raise taxes... it will do something else which will cause something else to happen then something else will occur that might or might not affect your result. Hell, things start to change in respond to raising taxes even before you raise taxes. And this is usually what most economists would disagree on but cause 'it's situational' and nobody is sure what the actual situation is as not only it's changing, it's also changes when you look at it.

FDR sucked

Considering the source is a guy who claims to be evil, I'll take it with context.

Only 0.03% as much as Regan though.

ftfy...oh wai....

That's not true.

Looked at top 1% increase
Increase in taxes 1940-1945: economy still expanding
Increase in taxes 1950-1963: economy still expanding
Increase in taxes 1969-1970: economy still expanding
Increase in taxes 1990-1991: economy still expanding
Increase in taxes 1992-2000: economy still expanding

http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

Economy: more than just one variable affects it

So, to you, 1% of the population = entire population.

And you wonder why I question your so-called "profession"

the far right mantra is that the 1% are responsible for every good thing and taxes burden them out of creating jobs and deficating rainbows. truly it's you who thinks they are the entire population.

Look how edgy I am I made art about it:

What better way to prove a point then by not making a difference.

How about occupying spending more time to better yourself than complaining about rich people.

And yet, our so-called economist said that when the 1% tax rate went up, the economy expanded.

And she failed to report that at the time the tax rate actually increased, the economy retracted. Her tables even proved it. She had to use multiple years to point out a net increase, which the economy is supposed to do that anyway.

But I guess cause and effect is just a fallacy argument in both her's and your eyes....

Yes, but the economy expanded during this period because of WWII.

Korean War
(1950–1953)

Vietnam War
(1953–1975)

Persian Gulf War
(1990–1991)

The economy nearly always expands, more people working = greater productivity. I don't see what point kara is really trying to make.

Tax cuts for wealth individuals (Reaganomics) always net more total revenue for the government. So if the tax burden indeed needs to rise, that seems like a pretty good solution.

Because you said "when taxes are raised across the board...."
Oh no, you didn't.

So to you a tax rate increase only counts if is across all incomes?

I'll remember that for future conversations

Kara said:

Kara wasn't making the point. Kara was refuting this stupid statement.